There are lots of ways to promote bigotry and ignorance. The easiest and most obvious is to just run around shouting “Fuck faggots!”, which accounts for 90% of internet traffic. Another is to declare that you heard from an invisible, silent being that exists…somewhere…that faggots are bad and don’t deserve equal rights. Another is to assert that it’s just your belief that faggots are evil, and how dare you insult my beliefs (which are insulting to other people) (oh, and I want my beliefs enshrined in the law)?
The problem with these approaches is that the public is catching on to them. Stupid can’t hide for long, and more and more people are saying “Fuck your beliefs” and giving gays equal rights anyways. “Damn it!” says the bigot. “I have to deny people their rights, but I can’t do it by being an obvious dumbfuck any more! Whatever shall I do?” The answer is provided, luckily for the bigot, in today’s Washington Post. You gotta be a sneaky dumbshit bigot. You gotta take what you think the opposition believes (which is, of course, nothing like what the opposition actually believes–you are a dumbfuck bigot after all!) and turn it around on them! You gotta be, not really clever, but what you imagine to be clever in your tiny little pea brain. You gotta be an intelligent imbecile.
By Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman
February 20 at 6:38 am
Ha! Take that, liberals! We put a question mark in our title! That should fill you with doubt about your own beliefs. ‘Cause that’s how intelligent imbecility works. We’re tricky and shit.
Same-sex marriage advocates, and their lawyers, cite Jefferson’s “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” to underscore everyone’s right to marry without state interference. Last week, they successfully challenged Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Given current legal trends, there seems little doubt that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree with U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen’s ruling. Gay rights advocates believe this ruling is a major progressive advance.
I’m a gay rights advocate, and when I heard about that ruling the first thing I thought was, “Major Progressive Advance.” Except for the part where I never thought any such thing. Actually, my first thought was, “The bigots are gonna shit themselves,” and boy oh boy was I right.
We ask: Why is this progressive?
No you don’t. You never asked that. This is just a bullshit rhetorical device for you to try to make yourselves look smart while spouting idiocy. The only people you’re fooling with this shit are people who were already dumb enough to agree with you before you even wrote a word.
Or put another way: Why is giving the government more power over your personal life, as opposed to less, considered progressive?
Why are loaded, deliberately misleading questions the things you beat your wife with?
Oh, I’m sorry, was that out of line? I should have known you would never beat your wife. You just take out your frustrations by raping and murdering a hooker. My bad.
See? I can make up passive aggressive dogshit about other people and spout it without blinking! Publish me, Washington Post!
The government gives legal benefits to people in marriages that the government recognizes. All gay people are asking is that they receive the same benefits. It’s not that fucking hard to understand. This doesn’t involve government controlling their personal lives. But singling out gay people specifically to ban them from certain benefits? That DOES involve government interfering with people’s personal lives. No fucking duh.
Ironically, it may turn out that gay marriage advocates are trying to further cement a dangerous philosophical trend that they would normally see as conservative, retrogressive or even reactionary.
Ironically, there’s no irony here, since you’re just pulling this out of your tightly puckered asshole.
Gay marriage advocates believe the progressive position is to require every marriage to get the same governmental blessing. But this is actually not a progressive or liberating posture at all.
The right approach for those who believe in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” freed from government control is self-evident: no government control over marriage.
This is becoming the new right wing way to promote straight privilege. They ignore all the legal benefits of marriage (hospital visitation, shared tax forms, tax benefits, etc.) and act like marriage is nothing but a word. But I guarantee you–if either of these guys’ wife is in the hospital, they’ll damn sure take advantage of the “government control” that lets them visit her. And when these two fucking nitwits file their taxes, they’ll damn sure let “government control” give them some marriage-based tax credits.
Which is to say, they’ll glad spew empty words about “government control over marriage” in a rag like the WaPo. That’s just words. But the moment it affects their real lives, everything they’re saying goes right down the shitter.
The same-sex marriage position requires first accepting the government’s right to sanction marriage.
It obviously doesn’t. It requires recognizing that straight couples get benefits that gays don’t. It requires recognizing how fucking unfair that is. It also requires knowing a right wing bullshit artist when you see one–and I see two that the WaPo decided deserved to have their verbal fecal matter spread to the entire country.
Moreover, advocates don’t merely agree to give government this power, they accept a state’s right to discriminate. The federal court decision overturning Virginia’s gay marriage ban is premised on the state failing to provide a sufficient reason for discriminating between couples wanting to get hitched. This presupposes the right of the government to sanction marriage. Ironically, this is the position of the supposedly conservative traditional marriage defenders.
Go back and read that paragraph again. The first sentence is supposed to tell us what the latter sentences will demonstrate. Read it. The first sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything that follows. Read it again. I challenge you to explain how the first sentence is even tangentially related to anything that follows.
Keep in mind: The WaPo published this illogical garbage. And the WaPo is purportedly a respectable newspaper. Yeah, fucking right.
But the really important point to keep in mind here is PRIVILEGE. These two fuckheads have probably taken advantage of marriage rights numerous times. They just take it for granted. Pick up your kids from school? Sure, Mommy and Daddy are married, and legally that’s all that’s required to retrieve your kids from school (even if they aren’t your biological children). They don’t even think about it. The only reason they can flippantly tell gays “Just don’t get legal recognition” is that they’re so used to legal recognition that they can’t even realize they have it any more.
Trust me, no married couple would ever voluntarily give up the legal benefits they enjoy. Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman are no different.
While the Supreme Court has made other important rulings on marriage in the past, no jurist ever suggested disagreement with state laws banning same-sex marriage — until recently.
It’s never been done before, so why do it now?
(Nota bene: This exact same argument could have been made against inter-racial marriage 60 years ago.)
Gay rights lawyers say such decisions were wrong, surely by today’s standards. We ask: What is progressive about conditioning the state’s right to sanction marriage on changeable judicial attitudes?
You don’t ask that. You’re not asking anything. Stop pretending that you’re capable of thought.
Anyone who reads this can see exactly what you’re doing. The bigots have lost the gay marriage debate on one front after another, so now you just wanna take your ball and go home. Just end legal marriage entirely! That oughta go over well! I’m sure the step-fathers out there who no longer have legal guardianship over their step-children won’t mind at all! Right wingers are smart!
The more principled approach, which is consistent across the philosophical spectrum, is leaving marriage to the religious and family institutions from whence it came.
What philosophical spectrum? Is there even such a thing as a philosophical spectrum? I’ve been studying philosophy since 2000, and I’ve never encountered any such thing.
Privilege is again at play here. What Leahy and Goldman are really asking is, “Can’t we just let the church (which already excludes gays) give us all the benefits and tell everyone who’s not like us to fuck off?” No, shithead, you can’t. It doesn’t work that way. Marriage is a civil contract. It has been for a very long time. And I know, you really want all the benefits to yourself, even if sharing them with others won’t cost you a thing. That’s because you’re suffering from a common disorder known in psychiatry as Being An Asshole.
Marriage existed long before there were government bureaucrats looking to raise revenue by collecting license fees.
Yeah, that’s why the government recognizes marriages. The tiny fees they get from licenses.
If a person meets whatever common sense, minimal legal requirements are established for people to wed — such as those related to age, health, mental capacity or banning incest — why should government approval be required?
That’s what the gays are asking. You seem to have missed this part.
You see, STRAIGHT marriages don’t require government approval. Wanna get married? Sure, why not. It’s not like there’s an exam. As long as you’re straight, you get married. Simple as that.
All gays are asking is that they be treated the same way.
If gay rights advocates truly believe marriage is a protected, inalienable right, then they should be in court arguing against state-sanctioned marriage per se.
It’s not that gays are destroying traditional marriage, it’s that they SHOULD be destroying traditional marriage. See how subtle and nuanced these bigots are becoming?
What about the traditional marriage position – that defining these unions is up to the states and that states have a vested interest in promoting traditional families? It runs counter to the conservative belief in limited government.
The true conservative position should be to let the church control everything. Christian hegemony for the win!
Same-sex couples are generally no better or worse at parenting than those with different sexual orientations. Limiting marriage on procreation grounds, even if legal, is a slippery slope that would trample the Constitution and personal liberties in a way worthy of China, not America.
That’s the only point in this op-ed where these two say anything even vaguely rational. But then they fuck it up by going, “China! Amiright?”
Most important, a marriage license is derivative, not the basic right at issue. If the right to marry is inalienable, then the government needs to stop seeing it as another revenue raiser or privilege creator.
We should just leave it to religious institutions! They secure privilege much more hatefully than the government ever could!
In practical effect, all same-sex marriage proponents are claiming is their inalienable right to be required to pay a marriage fee like everyone else.
How the fuck did this sentence make it past an editor?
All they’re claiming is a fee? So hospital visitation isn’t part of legal marriage? And neither is guardianship of children? What about inheritance rights? Adoption? Tax credits? Spouse benefits for insurance plans?
No, none of that exists. Well, it all does exist, but Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb are so caught up in their own privilege that they stupidly don’t even realize how much legal benefit they get from marriage. They think they can just erase the entire legal structure of the marriage cake and still get all the frosting. Well, sorry, fucknuts. It doesn’t work that way. If you actually got your way, you’d have no legal basis on which to claim you can visit your wife if she’s dying in the hospital. Think about that–if you ever even think at all.
Look, I’m not saying all conservatives are stupid. I’ve met a few smart ones. But too many of them are complete idiots. And the worst type of conservative idiot is the one who masters the English language just enough to make an argument that might be mistaken for rational human thought if viewed from a thousand miles away through layers of skin-melting fog. In other words, the one who’s able to gussy up his imbecility with just enough false erudition to be published in an overrated rag like the WaPo.